Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
The following is subjective: "The first time he operated the Enterprise transporter the cargo bay he intended Kirk and Spock to materialize in turned out to be crawling with Romulans." In the movie, Scotty claimed that if there was any common sense to the design of the ship, that's where he would be beaming them. This, then, is not a problem with his transporting, but rather in his knowledge about the layout of the ship, and this passage should be changed to reflect this. MystRivenExile 03:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is also a terribly written sentence to begin with. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"When beaming himself and Kirk to the Enterprise he ended up in a water conduit in Engineering, nearly drowning before Kirk was able to evacuate him through an emergency hatch." In the film, the tubes are labeled "Intert Reactant" why is it assumed it is water? Wouldn't the more likely substance be Deuterium? At the very least, the article should be corrected to read "Inert Reactant". Joeloveland 15:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Because the dialog itself called it water. Not to mention, liquid deuterium would be so cold that Scotty would have died and shattered on falling out of the pipe. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I would assume the water exists to be converted into deuterium when needed. So yeah, I would leave it as water labled as "Inert Reactant".--JayStrang 20:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Scotty beamed Archer's beagle into the unknown after "a little debate with my instructor" - Doesn't that make him a cadet? - Capricorn 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
First in Class revoked? Edit
I know that this was found in his dossier on the website, but I was wondering, if this kind of disciplinary action is possible. It's similar to something such as, having your diploma revoked because of something you did after you've already graduated.
From Pegg, with love. Edit
- The following had just been added to the article. I moved it here for further review. Seems to be non-official.
Background (according to Simon Pegg: http://www.peggster.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=1840 ): Montgomery Scott was born on March 3rd 2222, in Linlithgow, West Lothian. His parents eventually moved him and his brother Robert to Aberdeen, where his sister Clara was born. An exceptional student Scotty (or Mad Monty as his friends called him) was advanced forward several years in the educational system, meaning his intellectual peers were all at University age, whilst he was a mere 14. As a result, he spent much of his time crawling the pubs of Aberdeen with is friends, drinking and getting into fights about thermodynamics and quantum mechanics with men twice his size. At the age of 16, he came to the attention of professors at the Advanced Relativistic Physics Department at Glasgow University, after disproving the Prerera Theory (regarding photon torpedo detonation) and was transferred to study there for a year (where he really picked up the accent) before being accepted to Starfleet Academy on a scholarship. However he deferred his placement in favor of practical experience in space, working aboard mining ships and freighters, in particular the USS Deirdre, where he fell in love with engineering. Eventually he attended Starfleet and finished top of his graduating year, although the honor was later stripped due to disciplinary action taken against him due to "highly speculative and dangerous experiments with matter transfer".
- Maybe just add the link, but not the rest? -- Cid Highwind 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering if Simon Pegg's lines about being underfed and not having enough to eat are tongue in cheek references to James Doohan's substantial weight gain in later life. Has anyone seen anything that would back this assumption up? - ElHavier 16:32, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
- You should ask Orci this the next time he does a live chat with TrekMovie.com. I did laugh at the notion though. – Alientraveller 16:45, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
While Scott was the more prominent character in the film, I don't believe it was ever established that Keenser was his assistant. In fact, in Star Trek: Ongoing, Issue 14, the case is precisely the opposite: Keenser (a Lieutenant in the comic) is the Chief Engineer of the Delta Vega research facility, and had been there for years before Scotty arrived. That's not really canon, I suppose, but unless there's a canon source making clear that Keenser is Scotty's assistant, I suggest we change the wording from "his assistant, Keenser" to "his colleague, Keenser" or the like. --Tesseraktik (talk) 15:23, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
- I think the sense might have come from the way Scotty was always ordering him around, but I suppose that's not hard proof. -Angry Future Romulan 15:57, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
- According to Scotty in the video game, "if there's a problem with the warp core, he (Keenser)'s your man." So, recognizing Keenser's strengths, he doesn't pull rank and insist on doing it all himself. Although, it's likely just a way of including the character in the game.--LauraCC (talk) 14:11, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
Nod to Prime Scotty's "Transparent Aluminum"? Edit
Was Spock Prime's "gift" to Scotty of his transwarp calculations a nod to Prime universe Scotty's telling the 20th century scientist about transparent aluminum? (Spock remembers even though he wasn't there to see him do it; Bones was)
It certainly got them of a jam.
- I don't think so, or at least there isn't any evidence of it that I know of. Many plot elements of Star Trek are similar to others without being a nod to each other. 31dot (talk) 18:47, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
I mean what would giving somebody something they will/may develop themselves as it turns out be called according to this? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage --LauraCC (talk) 19:10, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
- My overall point here is that we would need evidence of what you are suggesting in order to put it in this article. The fact that the plot elements are similar is not sufficient, as it could be a coincidence without any thought to drawing a similarity with the prior plot point. 31dot (talk) 19:38, March 9, 2015 (UTC)